So I am fairly new to community and started HRT 5 months ago. I was mostly passing before HRT and now I am full-time. In my attempt to make trans friends, I decided to go out with 3 other transwomen that I had met at the local lgbt center. However after spending two hours with them, I realized we had very different opinions on certain trans related things mainly:
1. How I view Trans woman vs them: In my mind, I am a biological man that has a very feminine soul/mind. Hence transitioning to align my body with my mind. I want to be complete stealth( with few exceptions) but still nothing can change the fact that I am a biological male. Now they view Trans woman as females that were born with deformity ....hence transitioning to correct that. While I wish this was really true but I know I will never be able to accept that thought process as I am way too realistic for that.
2. Dating: They view males that don't want to go out with them as bigots/discriminating while I just see that as a preference and nothing wrong with that.
3. Practice non disclosure when it comes to dating: while I do want to be mostly stealth after srs, I believe prospective partners have to know about my trans stAtus before physical intimacy. I do think life would be much easier with non disclosure but that would be very wrong. Those other trans woman think if one is very passable, then non disclosure should be practiced as that makes things very easier. Isn't that a selfish thing though?
Wondering if these ideology is very common in our community or those women were exceptions?
Thanks
The simple answer is you are your own person and don't have to conform to others ways of thought. Everyone has their own viewpoint. If they disrespect you they are not your friends. Welcome by the way. Glad u are here. My name is Moni
Welcome to the forum newgirltx!!!
Like Moni said... It doesn't really matter what the transwomen you were with think! Their opinions are just that....We all have our own path to travel and make all the aspects of this process of transition fit who we are and where we want to go with our lives....
Congrats on the HRT and wishing you all good things as you continue to move forward!!! I hope we see more of you around here!!!
Onward we go!!!
Ashley :)
You are not alone in this thinking. I'm the same way... I have a very realistic mind... I also am more centered, I guess, politically so I feel that will make things difficult for me making friends with other trans people. But I'm far from being able to start my transition and am focused on those battles right now.
Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk
Honesty with the person you have a deep personal relationship is the single most important part of that relationship. How can you trust someone if they withhold the truth about themselves?
For everyone else, "What You See Is What I Am". No need to get more involved than that.
I've hung out with a lot of other trans women here in San Antonio I've met at a support group. I've found much the same in many of them. Sounds like we think a lot alike. I'm trans and always will be and am proud of it. I have experience and feelings that cis women don't. I do have a couple of other trans women I hang out with a lot who feel the same. We always have a blast. We can discuss and share things no one else understands. And yeah I would always be upfront with prospective partners!
Welcome to Susan's Place. You didn't mention ages but it sounds like you are much more mature than the others. You have taken much more information into consideration in deciding how you want to live your life. This doesn't mean you can get along with the others but you have to agree to disagree.
We have the difference in opinion on this site as well but even more so. We have girls who were able to start blockers in their teens and as the result, they haven't had the years of living with their birth gender that the rest of us had. For them a CIS like existence is possible where their past can be almost totally hidden.
I can understand both viewpoints however I decided a long time ago that I would live my life matching your standards to ensure a strong bond of trust with others.
We issue to all new members the following links so you will best be able to use the web site.
Things that you should read
Site Terms of Service & Rules to Live By (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,2.0.html) | Standard Terms & Definitions (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,54369.0.html) | Post Ranks (including when you can upload an avatar) (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,114.0.html.) |
Reputation rules (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,18960.0.html) | News posting & quoting guidelines (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,174951.0.html) | Photo, avatars, & signature images policy (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,59974.msg383866.html#msg383866) |
Quote from: newgirltx on July 23, 2017, 07:12:36 PM
So I am fairly new to community and started HRT 5 months ago. I was mostly passing before HRT and now I am full-time. In my attempt to make trans friends, I decided to go out with 3 other transwomen that I had met at the local lgbt center. However after spending two hours with them, I realized we had very different opinions on certain trans related things mainly:
1. How I view Trans woman vs them: In my mind, I am a biological man that has a very feminine soul/mind. Hence transitioning to align my body with my mind. I want to be complete stealth( with few exceptions) but still nothing can change the fact that I am a biological male. Now they view Trans woman as females that were born with deformity ....hence transitioning to correct that. While I wish this was really true but I know I will never be able to accept that thought process as I am way too realistic for that.
I have a very difficult time believing that someone who is currently living full-time and eventually planning on living in complete stealth still thinks of themselves as a "man... with a very feminine soul/mind".
Trans women are biologically women in the way that matters most - our brains. Our mentality, our minds, our very souls are female.
Claiming that you are "way too realistic" to accept yourself as female tells me that you have a lot to learn about what it means to be trans. Are you implying that trans women who don't subscribe to your view are less realistic? That we are living in a fantasy? Honestly, it feels like a thinly veiled insult.
The way I see it; some f us might feel one way on the inside, but choose to portray themselves as cis-female in public. This would prevent bigots from reading them too quickly. Being read in Texas may be a very dangerous thing. I know. I live be about 3 hours north of San Antonio.
Quote from: echo7 on July 23, 2017, 09:48:11 PM
Honestly, it feels like a thinly veiled insult.
I didn't feel insulted at all.
Quote from: echo7 on July 23, 2017, 09:48:11 PM
I have a very difficult time believing that someone who is currently living full-time and eventually planning on living in complete stealth still thinks of themselves as a "man... with a very feminine soul/mind".
Trans women are biologically women in the way that matters most - our brains. Our mentality, our minds, our very souls are female.
Claiming that you are "way too realistic" to accept yourself as female tells me that you have a lot to learn about what it means to be trans. Are you implying that trans women who don't subscribe to your view are less realistic? That we are living in a fantasy? Honestly, it feels like a thinly veiled insult.
I tend to agree with Echo. I don't really like being called unrealistic. Saying a trans-woman is really a biological man sounds a lot like something that would come out of the mouth of someone like McHugh or some other anti-trans crusader.
We may not be cis-female but we're definitely not cis-male.
Paige :)
Quote from: newgirltx on July 23, 2017, 07:12:36 PM
I am a biological man that has a very feminine soul/mind.
I honestly don't see the problem with a transgender person expressing this. It's 100% valid and aligns with many gender concepts like, non-binary, gender fluid, two-spirit, and third gender. Just to name a few.
Why do we have to police the way people identify as transgender?
Are we the gender police? Are we playing mirror mirror on the wall, who's the most transgender of all?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Hi newgirltx
I'm Laurie. I would like to say hi and welcome you to Susan's place. (Hug) I'm not going to say anything about who's right or who's wrong that is not anything for me to decide. What I can say is that there is a lot of diversity in the world and in our own little social sphere of the transgender spectrum. I am trans and I have my own feelings and ideas on the subject and so does each and every one of us. You cannot judge one another's personal views more than to assess whether they are close enough to yours for you to get along with that person. If not then you move on to another person that you can. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. SO don't dwell on it if it differs from your own. There is room for both.
I hope you like it here at Susan's because there are a lot of good people here to help if you have a need. On the flip side their are a lot of others here that your own experiences may be of help. What I'm saying is that we want and need you here. I hope you will decide to stick around.
Hugs,
Laurie
I think that the community of transgender women is a great place to come and to talk about the process of transitioning, including things about the effects of hormones, the possible ways of accomplishing physical changes, etc. but when it comes to finding people with shared interests, you're looking at a population of maybe 1% of people, so the likelihood of finding people who share your specific interests gets very slim, especially if you start adding geography and the practicality of meeting people in person.
In the end, there are limits to how much and what kind of support and community you may find in places like this one. While you may very well find some kinship with others who share your own values and preferences, you may be just as likely to find yourself at odds.
If nothing else, it's certainly an opportunity to allow yourself to grant some compassion and empathy for others who may not share your specific views. By setting an example, you may very well plant a seed that could encourage that empathy in another. Sad as it may seem, being an example may be the most powerful weapon in your armory, even if the outcome is still 100% up to the other to follow that example.
Erin
:police:
Let us be careful to discuss issues and not provoke argument please.
Hi Newgirltx,
You bring up some interesting points. The dating aspects of your post don't really apply to me as my partner and I have been together for thirty plus years and are not looking to change this. While some hold to keeping stealth, even in their relationships, we try to have no secrets between each other. It is a matter of choice and it works for us.
The quandary of what a Transgender woman is has caused me much angst. I wrestled long and hard to accept that I am Transgender and that I could live with it. It almost killed me. Now that I can accept that I am a Trans woman, the distinction between CIS and Trans designator loses significance to me. I am happy being me, something that was not a common part of my life in the past. I present as a woman and interact with the world as a woman. I feel and see myself as a woman and live my life as a woman. When I stopped being concerned about the designator before "woman" I have been able to live, experience, contribute and find happiness. When I am laughing with or crying with a sister, sharing lives and holding each other up during common struggles it makes no difference what each other's internal biology suggests. At that point it makes no difference of cis or Trans, we are both women and doing what is truly important in life. Some may consider all this as syntax or personal perspective but over the past few months I have been given the opportunity to join in some woman's groups that share deeply personal life stuff; things that they would never discuss with a man present. I felt honored to be able to share in such intimate revelations. Had I considered myself to be a cis man, even with a femine heart, I would have felt wrong and a fraud, an imposter taking advantage of a trust. But I am a woman and I belonged there.
It is quite late here and I have been rambling, please forgive me if I have offended anyone.
Anne
Why would you think a trans woman is "biologically a man"? What aspects are you referring to?
Let's say we are talking about a trans woman who "went all the way". (I'm not getting into the brain parts)
Sex chromosomes - probably XY but that doesn't affect anything at this point
Hormones - female
Secondary sex characteristics - female (ofc if she went through male puberty there might be a few things left)
Genitals etc - female (except the prostate)
Gonads - none
I like to think it very similar to a cis female who had to have a complete hysterectomy. You can say biologically intersex, biologically MTF trans or whatever. No one is saying a trans woman is biologically %100 same as a healthy cis woman. But in most medical situations it might be harmful to consider a trans woman "biologically male" unless she hasn't medically transitioned of course.
On the other topic. If one says "I would never ever date a trans person no matter what genitals they have, even if they look cis" then yes that's in my opinion transphobic (unless it's because they want biological children) but ofc it's their right and I don't personally care. I wouldn't want to date anyone who won't see me as female anyway.
About 3, I don't think there's anything wrong with non disclosure for one night stands, no one has to explain their medical history. (unless one has stds imo) But I would have safety concerns.
I believe you hit some good points as well. There are many different views and many different people. Everyone is going to take a different stance on the way they wish to transition. I align closely with your views, but there is no real right and wrong. I believe for the most part, your ideals will help you transition more smoothly with less confrontation.
As for "similar with any girl with a deformity being corrected through surgery", that's a wonderful way to view it. In the end, we are all just people who want to feel good about ourselves. Nobody in their right mind seeks anything but their personal happiness at the end of the day. You continue being happy and you will meet many more like minded people. 😙
Yep I think the same way.
I would love to know the reason for why we are this way. But until then I'm just a person who feels female, even though I was born male, and so lives as a female.
I tend to agree with xFreya. I see myself as a woman, never a man. Since I was little, everybody told me I was different and I definitely felt different. Something wasn't quite right. It didn't take me long to find out eheheh but could only transition at 18 (before I had no support from parents).
And since I transitioned at 18, two years ago, when I hopefully reach 60 and am an old lady the risk factos I face will be very similar to women of that age group, minus anything that is related to gonads or uteri. Because that's a lifetime on HRT and with SRS. So yes I view trans women as women. We're obviously not exactly the same as women who can bear a child but still I very much doubt we stay completely biologically male for the rest of our lives. It might be different the later someone transitions, I don't know. But I certainly don't feel like a man and never have. Never will when even my voice sounds female, when everyone treats me as a girl, and when being with a guy just feels right. But I respect those who view it differently.
Also, I'm one who lives stealth but not to romantic partners. That said, I am not dating because I'm having my surgery on September and want to be as stable as possible. Maybe my view on this will change too after surgery. I don't believe one has the right to know your medical history unless you actually have an infecto-contagious disease (which trans isn't) or you still are pre-op, especially if a night stand. But I dont know if I could keep up wit hiding in a committed relationship. I think it would cause me major trust issues.
Yeah most of the time people think there are more unchangeable biological differences between AMAB and AFAB people than there is. A lot of people think HRT is an unnatural medication to grow breasts when it actually changes a lot of your biology. Your gene expressions, metabolism, muscles and fat distribution, probably some things about your brain etc.
I am I. It's all an opinion.
Well, much of the "issue" comes from confusing sex and gender. Try this on for size:
I am a human being.
I suffer from gender incongruity, a mismatch of gender between parts of myself.
I seek medical aid in reconciling this incongruity.
This would be me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: echo7 on July 23, 2017, 09:48:11 PM
I have a very difficult time believing that someone who is currently living full-time and eventually planning on living in complete stealth still thinks of themselves as a "man... with a very feminine soul/mind".
Trans women are biologically women in the way that matters most - our brains. Our mentality, our minds, our very souls are female.
Claiming that you are "way too realistic" to accept yourself as female tells me that you have a lot to learn about what it means to be trans. Are you implying that trans women who don't subscribe to your view are less realistic? That we are living in a fantasy? Honestly, it feels like a thinly veiled insult.
Dear echo7,
Apparently, OP is not the only one who has a lot to learn... For instance, accepting that there is no one standard view of what "to be a transwoman" means. It means different things to different people and no, you're not more "right" than OP. She's just expressing how she lives it and expressing her dismay at discovering that different people view being a transwoman as very different concepts... Does that make OP less trans? No, it doesn't.
Perhaps did you take the words of OP a bit too literally. I'm sure when OP says that she's "biologically male", she really wants to say that she's genetically male. But biology is more than genetics and in our case, there's increasing evidence that it has to do with in utero brain development and exposure to maternal hormones, which indeed seems leads to a brain with some structurally female features.
What's the most important? Your genotype or your mind? You assume it's the mind, but you should not be so quick assuming... Because that's an insult, and not really thinly veiled, at those who make the choice not to transition. You're saying they are not trans. Again, the answer to this question depends on individual opinion. For me and probably the largest part of this community, it would be the later (mind). But if someone tells me that she feels a girl but prefers to somehow try to suppress those feelings in order to live in accordance to their male genotype, they're welcome to do so. To each her own. They aren't less trans because of that.
Now, although OP was innacurate in saying that transwomen are "biologically male", you're certainly not more accurate in saying that they are. "What are we, biologically?" is actually a very silly question to which the only reasonable answer would be: a bit of both. We are clearly not just males trying to look like females because, as you've so eloquently said, "our mentality, our minds, our very souls are female." However - and I'm sorry for ruining your idyllic picture - neither are we just females... No matter how you tackle the question, your karyotype will ALWAYS show XY [maybe in some very remote future, there will be technology to change that also... but the fact that you took the first breath in this world as a phenotypical male will forever remain engraved in the space-time fabric].
What OP meant (had you exerted a little bit more perspicacity, you'd have come to the same conclusion) is that although she feels as womanly as a ciswoman, she can't honestly deny she's genetically a male. This is evident and irrefutable. It's a fact. I didn't feel insulted, at all. I'm even very comfortable with the notion. And believe me, the fact of thinking like this don't make OP or me less of a woman than you.
Now, dare I ask: do you feel insecure when someone reminds you of who you are, genetically? It shouldn't, because as you say, the mind is what matters the most. Why should you be bothered, right?
No hard feelings.
Peace & Hugs, Sarah
Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
P.S.: Note to the police: I saw your post about your patrolling this area, AFTER I published this post... I hope I haven't infringed any laws, officer. [emoji16] If so, accept my most honest excuses. S.V.D.
Quote from: Sarah.VanDistel on July 24, 2017, 03:51:22 PM...there is no one standard view of what "to be a transwoman" means. It means different things to different people and no, you're not more "right" than OP. She's just expressing how she lives it and expressing her dismay at discovering that different people view being a transwoman as very different concepts... Does that make OP less trans? No, it doesn't.
The category of "trans" is not a very distinct category, certainly not in today's world. For some of us, it's a temporary category, one indicating the presence of gender dysphoria and/or a narrative of transition, rather than a fixed identity. For others, it's immutable.
I tend to think that "trans" is a socially constructed category, emergent from the individual interior experience of gender dysphoria... but no longer dependent on that interior experience, given the myriad non-dysphoric people who traverse the gender binary themselves. But even if we restrict ourselves to binary transitioners, I'm still in the "socially constructed" camp, for "coming out" as trans (not to mention transition itself) is ultimately a ritual, the purpose of which is change one's social categorization.
Conversely, consider the experience of someone who is gender dysphoric but never comes out -- they will never have the social experience of "being trans," with all its attendant wonders and horrors.
QuotePerhaps did you take the words of OP a bit too literally. I'm sure when OP says that she's "biologically male", she really wants to say that she's genetically male. But biology is more than genetics and in our case, there's increasing evidence that it has to do with in utero brain development and exposure to maternal hormones, which indeed seems leads to a brain with some structurally female features.
What's the most important? Your genotype or your mind? You assume it's the mind, but you should not be so quick assuming... Because that's an insult, and not really thinly veiled, at those who make the choice not to transition. You're saying they are not trans.
I disagree with statements like "biologically/genetically male." Someone born with an XY genome but also complete androgen insensitivity will be assigned female at birth -- with a vagina, not a penis. They will grow and develop like other women, other than being infertile. Other than by expressing a desire to not be gendered female, she will experience a woman's life.
The categories of male and female were not created by genetics or any kind of biological "essence." These categories (which is actually true of all categories) are created by people, mostly subconsciously. Categories are patterns, and the patterns we perceive do not have mass, nor do they have energy. Something that has no mass and no energy doesn't
exist.
Now, when we take "trans" as a socially constructed category (not to mention a category lacking in a singular "image" or "schema" that we have for our "basic-level categories" like men and women and fish and chairs, but rather rooted in narrative disclosure) we also eliminate the problem of what someone does with their life after coming out. If you come out, if you perform that ritual, you enter trans social space. Some people will transition and transsex, and leave that category behind. Others will transition, but for narrative or physiological reasons will continue to occupy trans space. And even those who don't transition, for whatever reason, will still be "trans" to those who understand their narrative.
So what really matters? Ultimately, our interiority, and our social spaces. This is about as realistic as it gets. To focus on "biology" or "genetics" or even upbringing when it comes to gendering ourselves is a mistake. A philosophical and epistemological mistake.
There are no
essences. There is only the here and now.
QuoteWhat OP meant (had you exerted a little bit more perspicacity, you'd have come to the same conclusion) is that although she feels as womanly as a ciswoman, she can't honestly deny she's genetically a male. This is evident and irrefutable. It's a fact.
Until we "measure" a genome we can't honestly say what's in there at all, at all. We just don't
know, even though probability will lead to some very accurate guesses. And even if the chromosome is measured, the results on that particular chromosome only say that one has XX or XY genes there (or something else entirely). But these results aren't categorical indicators of gender! They are
conventionally taken as such -- and convention indicates a social construction. And as we see with CAIS women with XY genes, that social convention is mistaken.
Here's what's realistic: We will be gendered, by ourselves and by others. That gendering will be predicated on a combination of voice, face, body, social skills, narrative, and documentation. And, of course, one's personal interior truth. Now, if there is such a thing as "essence" then I'd say it's commensurate with "personal interior truth" first and foremost. I myself respect that interior truth above all. And I refuse to let other peoples' misunderstanding of how categories actually work to undermine that truth. I refuse to let a "conceptual framework" imprison me.
I think I am not allowed to post links here so I'll try to summarize what I read about genetic differences between sexes. I am not a scientist (yet :) ) but I am interested in this stuff. so correct me if I learned anything wrong.
So of all our chromosomes existence or lack of Y chromosome normally determines sex. In that Y chromosome about just 13 genes (we have about 20 thousand in total) don't exist in X chromosomes. I don't know what all of those do but I think the important one is the SRY gene. It turns undifferentiated gonads to testes. Testes produce testosterone and anti-müllerian hormone. These hormones inhibit the development of female reproductive structures and initiate male primary structures instead. Before that everything start the same, regardless of your chromosomes, penis and clitoris are homologues, so are labia majora and scrotal skin, prostate and skene gland etc. If your SRY gene is corrupt you will develop female. If you are completely insensitive to androgen you will develop female. Or you may have other intersex conditions, probably depending on a lot of factors. Being trans might probably be one of them too. (your brain may develop the other way for whatever reason)
So you can potentially go either way regardless of your sex chromosomes because those genes already exist on your other chromosomes (not sex chromosomes) or the one X you have.
I was also wondering if XX females will be more receptive to some of these things because well they have two of some genes. I read that one X chromosome is silenced, it is inactive. But about 150 genes appearently evades this inactivation. So maybe cis women get some of these in "higher doses".
Other than that hundreds or thousands of genes are turned on or off by your hormone levels. You can alter these with HRT.
So if I understand things right, even when it comes to genetics you can change a lot more than you can't.(gene expressions) I am not even sure whether it would make a big difference if we could make our chromosomes XX somehow. (after we are born)
As I look more into these things it doesn't make sense to me to use strong words like biological female/male or even genetic female/male in the cases of trans or intersex people. But to each their own. :)
Quote from: Sophia Sage on July 24, 2017, 05:41:00 PM
The category of "trans" is not a very distinct category, certainly not in today's world. For some of us, it's a temporary category, one indicating the presence of gender dysphoria and/or a narrative of transition, rather than a fixed identity. For others, it's immutable.
I tend to think that "trans" is a socially constructed category, emergent from the individual interior experience of gender dysphoria... but no longer dependent on that interior experience, given the myriad non-dysphoric people who traverse the gender binary themselves. But even if we restrict ourselves to binary transitioners, I'm still in the "socially constructed" camp, for "coming out" as trans (not to mention transition itself) is ultimately a ritual, the purpose of which is change one's social categorization.
Conversely, consider the experience of someone who is gender dysphoric but never comes out -- they will never have the social experience of "being trans," with all its attendant wonders and horrors.
I disagree with statements like "biologically/genetically male." Someone born with an XY genome but also complete androgen insensitivity will be assigned female at birth -- with a vagina, not a penis. They will grow and develop like other women, other than being infertile. Other than by expressing a desire to not be gendered female, she will experience a woman's life.
The categories of male and female were not created by genetics or any kind of biological "essence." These categories (which is actually true of all categories) are created by people, mostly subconsciously. Categories are patterns, and the patterns we perceive do not have mass, nor do they have energy. Something that has no mass and no energy doesn't exist.
Now, when we take "trans" as a socially constructed category (not to mention a category lacking in a singular "image" or "schema" that we have for our "basic-level categories" like men and women and fish and chairs, but rather rooted in narrative disclosure) we also eliminate the problem of what someone does with their life after coming out. If you come out, if you perform that ritual, you enter trans social space. Some people will transition and transsex, and leave that category behind. Others will transition, but for narrative or physiological reasons will continue to occupy trans space. And even those who don't transition, for whatever reason, will still be "trans" to those who understand their narrative.
So what really matters? Ultimately, our interiority, and our social spaces. This is about as realistic as it gets. To focus on "biology" or "genetics" or even upbringing when it comes to gendering ourselves is a mistake. A philosophical and epistemological mistake.
There are no essences. There is only the here and now.
Until we "measure" a genome we can't honestly say what's in there at all, at all. We just don't know, even though probability will lead to some very accurate guesses. And even if the chromosome is measured, the results on that particular chromosome only say that one has XX or XY genes there (or something else entirely). But these results aren't categorical indicators of gender! They are conventionally taken as such -- and convention indicates a social construction. And as we see with CAIS women with XY genes, that social convention is mistaken.
Here's what's realistic: We will be gendered, by ourselves and by others. That gendering will be predicated on a combination of voice, face, body, social skills, narrative, and documentation. And, of course, one's personal interior truth. Now, if there is such a thing as "essence" then I'd say it's commensurate with "personal interior truth" first and foremost. I myself respect that interior truth above all. And I refuse to let other peoples' misunderstanding of how categories actually work to undermine that truth. I refuse to let a "conceptual framework" imprison me.
Dear Sophia,
It's really late over here (2:20)... I had to think twice before keeping on reading your extensive and erudite answer, let alone answer it! (Instead of tomorrow, I mean.) I just didn't feel up to the challenge! [emoji57]
Still...
You seem to have understood that I said that I focus on "biology" or "genetics" or upbringing when it comes to gendering people. Well... I'm really not sure what led you to believe that. It's not the case. But I also think that no matter how much ignoring biology, genetics and upbringing sounds comforting, that doesn't make them disappear...
I'll conclude my intervention by just saying a couple of things. I promise I'll be succint.
I don't feel a prisonner in a "conceptual framework". Without overcomplicating: I just feel what I feel and I'm fine with it. I'm very well aware that outside of human experience, gender as a category doesn't really exist. Furthermore, there's no way of telling if my experience of feminity is the same as yours or as the girl next door, but for purposes of functionality the social construct agreed upon creates a fuzzy common ground around which people tend to orbit. I'm orbiting around it myself...
However...
Gender, as a category, may be a societal construct, but it has nonetheless its roots in a phenotypical and very objective dichotomy (which in turn has its roots in a genotypical dichotomy). No matter how much reality bending or wishful thinking, these phenotypical and genotypical dichotomies have "mass and energy", they do
exist and have probably been around since the early eukaryotes.
Genotypically and phenotypically, I came into existence as a male. But I've always felt this to be a mismatch, because what I feel is much more akin to what society categorized as female. So I am transitioning. I won't forget my past as a physical male. And I'm super cool and comfortable with that.
Hugs and... zzzzzzz... [emoji42]
Sarah
Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
To the OP:
Quote1. How I view Trans woman vs them: In my mind, I am a biological man that has a very feminine soul/mind. Hence transitioning to align my body with my mind. I want to be complete stealth( with few exceptions) but still nothing can change the fact that I am a biological male. Now they view Trans woman as females that were born with deformity ....hence transitioning to correct that. While I wish this was really true but I know I will never be able to accept that thought process as I am way too realistic for that.
2. Dating: They view males that don't want to go out with them as bigots/discriminating while I just see that as a preference and nothing wrong with that.
3. Practice non disclosure when it comes to dating: while I do want to be mostly stealth after srs, I believe prospective partners have to know about my trans stAtus before physical intimacy. I do think life would be much easier with non disclosure but that would be very wrong. Those other trans woman think if one is very passable, then non disclosure should be practiced as that makes things very easier. Isn't that a selfish thing though?
Wondering if these ideology is very common in our community or those women were exceptions?
These women are exceptional. To address their points:
1. They privilege their interiority, first and foremost. (As I just wrote at length above, this can be done in an internally consistent and coherent fashion. It's certainly not conventional in the materialistic somewhat rigidly simplistic West, but it's nonetheless a valid approach, one of many.) So how this plays out is that "I am a woman" is the core identity, it's what comes first. "I'm a woman, but my body has betrayed me, so I'm fixing my body," that's a very different thing than starting with, "My body is X or Y, but my mind disagrees, so I'm transitioning." In the latter case, I'd argue that you're giving your power away by privileging external circumstance (and external concepts of categorization) over personal truth (if your truth is "I'm female" and not "I'm bi-gendered"), but hey, it's your power to do with as you will.
2. Someone who says they won't date Jews, or Muslims, or atheists... are bigots and discriminating. Same goes for someone who categorically won't date a woman who is infertile, or a man who isn't rich. They're discriminating bigots because they are judging people categorically -- rather than taking each individual as a sentient being in their own right, with their own individual flaws and merits, and making a decision based on their attraction or lack thereof to that individual. Now, most straight people won't find people of the same gender attractive, and most gay people won't find the opposite sex attractive, but this is largely based on accumulated knowledge of one's biological response (physical arousal) -- which happens subconsciously and automatically and in the moment, not as a pre-determined conceptual choice.
3. I disagree that narrative non-disclosure should be practiced because it's "easier." It should be practiced as a consequence of one's personal interior truth (one's "soul" for lack of a better word)... insofar as the gendering one receives and expects to receive is correct. Mind you, if one is pre-op or non-op and tries to go bed with someone without narrative disclosure, that moment of disrobing still counts as "disclosure" even if it's done without words, and this is a very ill-advised way of "coming out" in our current culture. What would be "wrong" is leading someone to believe that the two of you will make babies together... or dating someone primarily to make babies, for that matter, as the latter reduces a person to a function.
If you do intend to practice non-disclosure in your day-to-day life, be aware that disclosing to potential sexual partners can lead to unintended disclosure in other milieus -- be it the workplace, in your social groups, what have you. Which, in turn, can have a material impact on the gendering you receive.
But the more poignant thing to recognize is that disclosure ("coming out") at any point in this journey is a ritual -- functionally, it's a request to be categorized and treated differently than you currently are. This is necessary if how you're being categorized (which will default to heterosexual and gender norms, among others) doesn't suit
you. So the choice to disclose or not really depends on your own personal truth and how well other people automatically recognize that truth. If your interior truth is that you are both a kind of male and a kind of female, then you're not going to get the gendering you need unless you're either visibly transgendered (non-passing) or through the rite of disclosure, and likewise if you're on the binary but the gendering you get is wrong -- which is why all transitions begin with "coming out" in some way, shape, or form. Conversely, if your personal truth is unequivocally on the binary, and the gendering you receive
is correct, then disclosure is practically a form of self-betrayal.
And sometimes we have to see for ourselves. "Know thyself" is easy to say, but we don't always know ourselves until we're informed by our experiences. I've outed myself before, and it made me feel
wrong. It added to my dysphoria -- no, it
invoked my dysphoria. So now I always let people gender me correctly, and after nearly two decades of this experience, I know there's no going back.
This was a crucial step in my transsexing -- to stop clocking myself.
Quote from: Sarah.VanDistel on July 24, 2017, 07:23:27 PMYou seem to have understood that I said that I focus on "biology" or "genetics" or upbringing when it comes to gendering people. Well... I'm really not sure what led you to believe that.
Sorry, Sarah, a lot of my response there should be taken within the context of the OP, and if anything doesn't seem applicable to you personally then please don't take it as such.
However...
QuoteHowever...
Gender, as a category, may be a societal construct, but it has nonetheless its roots in a phenotypical and very objective dichotomy (which in turn has its roots in a genotypical dichotomy). No matter how much reality bending or wishful thinking, these phenotypical and genotypical dichotomies have "mass and energy", they do exist and have probably been around since the early eukaryotes.
Genotypically and phenotypically, I came into existence as a male. But I've always felt this to be a mismatch, because what I feel is much more akin to what society categorized as female. So I am transitioning. I won't forget my past as a physical male. And I'm super cool and comfortable with that.
Now you're talking about
history. Sarah, the past no longer exists. It's gone. And yet here you are continuing to embrace it, as well as things like genotypes and phenotypes. Now, if the gendered implications of that don't make you dysphoric, then more power to you. Indeed, if the implications are actually important and crucial to your understanding of your personal truth, then disclosure is obviously right for you.
And of course, an understanding of phenotypes is very important during transition -- because it's phenotypes that inform (subconsciously, automatically) the social practice of gendering. So we do have to pay attention to them (not just the
one -- genital configuration -- that was apparent at birth) so that we can change them. But beyond that, there's no philosophical reason to
respect them, unless they're crucial to your personal truth. After they've been successfully addressed, you might find that the story of your past that you're telling today isn't as relevant to you as it is right now, in the midst of transition.
Me, I no longer
care about the conditions of my birth. They are irrelevant to my life today, having transitioned back at the turn of the century. Having lived this life for so long... I can say at this point that I really have "forgotten" the past. Because my memories have changed! When I think back to when I was like seven years old, the pictures of myself that appear in my head are pictures of a little girl. And this fills me with
joy so I go with it. :)
I transitioned to receive female gendering from myself and others... and that gendering in my experience is markedly different than male gendering or "trans" gendering. I'm living the dream, because I never forgot the truth at the center of my dream (and because I was privileged and lucky enough to have the resources to make it happen). And now everything has changed in translation.
It all kind of depends on what the dream is (or was), doesn't it?
And so started 1millionth war on proper trans-labels and definitions
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: elkie-t on July 24, 2017, 08:57:57 PM
And so started 1millionth war on proper trans-labels and definitions
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
....and onward it goes!!!! :)!!!!!!
Hi all,
I have no problem with any of us having different beliefs on how we relate to our bodies, ourselves and the world. My problem with the original post was the implication that those of us who didn't view the world as she did were not realistic. Maybe I'm misunderstanding her point but I think she implied that we who disagree with this point live in some sort of fantasy world not the real world.
Quote from: newgirltx on July 23, 2017, 07:12:36 PM
I will never be able to accept that thought process as I am way too realistic for that.
Take care,
Paige :)
Quote from: Sophia Sage on July 24, 2017, 08:18:46 PM
Sorry, Sarah, a lot of my response there should be taken within the context of the OP, and if anything doesn't seem applicable to you personally then please don't take it as such.
However...
Now you're talking about history. Sarah, the past no longer exists. It's gone. And yet here you are continuing to embrace it, as well as things like genotypes and phenotypes. Now, if the gendered implications of that don't make you dysphoric, then more power to you. Indeed, if the implications are actually important and crucial to your understanding of your personal truth, then disclosure is obviously right for you.
And of course, an understanding of phenotypes is very important during transition -- because it's phenotypes that inform (subconsciously, automatically) the social practice of gendering. So we do have to pay attention to them (not just the one -- genital configuration -- that was apparent at birth) so that we can change them. But beyond that, there's no philosophical reason to respect them, unless they're crucial to your personal truth. After they've been successfully addressed, you might find that the story of your past that you're telling today isn't as relevant to you as it is right now, in the midst of transition.
Me, I no longer care about the conditions of my birth. They are irrelevant to my life today, having transitioned back at the turn of the century. Having lived this life for so long... I can say at this point that I really have "forgotten" the past. Because my memories have changed! When I think back to when I was like seven years old, the pictures of myself that appear in my head are pictures of a little girl. And this fills me with joy so I go with it. :)
I transitioned to receive female gendering from myself and others... and that gendering in my experience is markedly different than male gendering or "trans" gendering. I'm living the dream, because I never forgot the truth at the center of my dream (and because I was privileged and lucky enough to have the resources to make it happen). And now everything has changed in translation.
It all kind of depends on what the dream is (or was), doesn't it?
Ah, Sophia!... I'm feeling that debating this very controversial theme will lead to nowhere (or worse, lol). It's intellectually stimulating, but alas not very rewarding in the end.
So let's agree to disagree! [emoji4] As long as each one is happy with her view... Right? I know that I am. I understand (and am glad) that you are. In the end, that's probably what really counts... Are we good? [emoji259]
Hugs, Sarah
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Thanks all of you for sharing your perspective on the topic. While I may not agree with everyone I certainly respect it.
As far as my initial post goes, I meant genetic male when I mentioned biological male. Also in my case I identify as a woman in my heart/soul/brain and nothing else but also believe that in this world that's not enough to be not be a genetic male. While I don't identify as a man at all, no amount of surgery or hormones can change the fact that I will always be a genetic male that looks and identifies as a female. In my opinion gender is a social construct but sex isn't.
Now i have only lived 4 months as a female of the total 19 yrs on this planet. Maybe in next 10 years my perspective will change as a matter of convenience as I move distant from my male life memories. However its only my personal perspective that might change but not the actual fact.
Quote from: Sarah.VanDistel on July 25, 2017, 03:19:07 AMAh, Sophia!... I'm feeling that debating this very controversial theme will lead to nowhere (or worse, lol). It's intellectually stimulating, but alas not very rewarding in the end.
So let's agree to disagree! [emoji4] As long as each one is happy with her view... Right? I know that I am. I understand (and am glad) that you are. In the end, that's probably what really counts... Are we good? [emoji259]
Hugs, Sarah
Oh, of course we're good! *hugs*
Quote from: newgirltx on July 25, 2017, 04:19:38 AMAs far as my initial post goes, I meant genetic male when I mentioned biological male. Also in my case I identify as a woman in my heart/soul/brain and nothing else but also believe that in this world that's not enough to be not be a genetic male. While I don't identify as a man at all, no amount of surgery or hormones can change the fact that I will always be a genetic male that looks and identifies as a female. In my opinion gender is a social construct but sex isn't.
Now i have only lived 4 months as a female of the total 19 yrs on this planet. Maybe in next 10 years my perspective will change as a matter of convenience as I move distant from my male life memories. However its only my personal perspective that might change but not the actual fact.
You're so lucky to be doing this so young! And I thought I was lucky transitioning in my early 30s. Anyways, yes, stay open-minded. Things can change.
Like, your understanding of semantics, for example, and not as a matter of convenience but perhaps one of wisdom. Of course we don't have the technology today to change our genetics, but perhaps that's not a pipe dream. Regardless, you might find a difference between thinking you "are a genetic male" -- which is predicated conceptually on being a type of male -- to recognizing that you were never male, despite (likely) having XY genetics.
You aren't obliged to gender your genetics!
We are all different. I totally get how you think and I agree.
A lot of transwomen are hung up on the fact that they *need* people to acknowledge they were always women and born as women. And yes, they feel insulted and even discriminated against if somebody says otherwise.
Well, to me, the beauty of being trans is precisely the fact that we were born as the opposite sex yet our identities align as females. I can't deny my biology nor do I want to. BUT, that's only me. You can't expect anyone to share your own concept of identity, so if they feel they were deformed women then just accept it and no need to think much else about it. Each trans person defines what makes them trans and how they see themselves.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: newgirltx on July 25, 2017, 04:19:38 AM
Also in my case I identify as a woman in my heart/soul/brain and nothing else but also believe that in this world that's not enough to be not be a genetic male.
With today's technology you probably can't change your genotype yes, but that may not mean as much as you think. Maybe refer to my earlier post and research yourself if this matters to you. Or just focus on changing your phenotype as much as you can. If you were a XY female with CAIS would
the idea of having a Y chromosome bother you much? Or would you see yourself as a female with a rare condition?
Quote from: newgirltx on July 25, 2017, 04:19:38 AM
As far as my initial post goes, I meant genetic male when I mentioned biological male. Also in my case I identify as a woman in my heart/soul/brain and nothing else but also believe that in this world that's not enough to be not be a genetic male. While I don't identify as a man at all, no amount of surgery or hormones can change the fact that I will always be a genetic male that looks and identifies as a female. In my opinion gender is a social construct but sex isn't.
I have a difficult time accepting the idea that gender is a social construct. If that's true, then shouldn't it be possible to 'cure' transgender people by socially conditioning them?
Quote from: newgirltx on July 25, 2017, 04:19:38 AMAs far as my initial post goes, I meant genetic male when I mentioned biological male. Also in my case I identify as a woman in my heart/soul/brain and nothing else but also believe that in this world that's not enough to be not be a genetic male. While I don't identify as a man at all, no amount of surgery or hormones can change the fact that I will always be a genetic male that looks and identifies as a female. In my opinion gender is a social construct but sex isn't.
Hi, and welcome to Susan's Place!
Gender as a purely social construct was a popular idea in feminist theory back in the 1970s, but it turns out to be pretty misleading. It still resurfaces occasionally as the basis for a rationale used to claim that transgender persons are 'not real', so look out for that!
Anyway, this turns out not to be the case. Gender identity appears to have a biological basis.
Now, you might be conflating several 'gender' things. There is also gender presentation, how we present ourselves to others, gender role, the sort of cultural social behaviors we demonstrate, and gender orientation, who we are attracted to.
Gender identity and gender orientation appear to be rooted in our biology. (I'm involved in a study of this, in the role of lab rat! The PhDs are looking at functional low level brain structure and finding interesting differences.)
The biological gender bias comes first. Cultural, and in particular "origin stories" and similar constructs that communicate evolving cultural gender concepts to subsequent generations evolved later.
Manners of dress and speech, hair, correct social behavior and similar items are cultural and often enforced by embellishments of the origin stories.
We know that there is an intrinsic element to gender identity from the accidental work of Dr John Money. He followed patients who through medical accidents following birth underwent involuntary gender reassignment. The patients were reassigned as a result of botched circumcisions and similar mishaps, and their parents were directed to raise the child entirely in the reassigned told. The patients were followed for ten years and Dr Money determined that they were adjusted to their assigned roles.
Dr Money published a paper claiming proof that gender roles were entirely learned. This was immediately accepted by certain parts of the feminist movement that felt this was a scientific proof of equality. Gender as entirely a learned social role is still a common concept today in some circles.
A follow up on the patients in Dr Money's study, however, turned up some disturbing results. A significant portion of the patients detransitioned in their teens with some displaying suicidal ideation.
The best known of these is David Reimer, raised as Brenda. This is often referred to as the John/Joan case. It ended badly.
When researched independently, Dr Money's work demonstrated an innate component to gender identity, with the involuntarily reassigned persons often exhibiting symptoms we are all too familiar with.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money
So, how's that for a greeting? :) It can certainly be an interesting topic to think about, but we have to be careful to examine all the facts and not fall victim to some logical fallacies that are used by trans-exclusionary rationalizations that crawl out of the woodwork from time to time.
Anyway, welcome, and I hope you will find Susan's Place to be useful and helpful.
A Cautionary Note:Much of the content here is visible to the public, so please remember when posting that
The Internet Never Forgets, and the various web crawlers and archival sites out there may retain information that you post.
We cannot ensure that any information you share on the site will be protected from public view and/or copying or reproduction. This warning is also listed in the Terms of Service listed below.
Do not share anything on Susan's that you do not want to be public information.
I also want to share some links with you. They include helpful information and the rules that govern the site. It is important for your enjoyment of the site to take a moment to go through them
Things that you should read
Site Terms of Service & Rules to Live By (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,2.0.html) | Standard Terms & Definitions (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,54369.0.html) | Post Ranks (including when you can upload an avatar) (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,114.0.html.) |
Reputation rules (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,18960.0.html) | News posting & quoting guidelines (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,174951.0.html) | Photo, avatars, & signature images policy (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,59974.msg383866.html#msg383866) |
Quote from: echo7 on July 25, 2017, 10:06:42 AM
I have a difficult time accepting the idea that gender is a social construct. If that's true, then shouldn't it be possible to 'cure' transgender people by socially conditioning them?
I think we are naturally inclined to be one way or the other but society definitely tries to mold us a certain way based on our genitals. So that's the construct.
Imagine yourself being born in an island and growing up there alone, with nobody to teach you what you are or how to behave. Would you behave exactly the same way you do now? Probably not as some things you learnt before transition as one gender and then you learnt some others as the other one. That's the construct.
If I imagine that about myself, I think it's very likely I would develop traits and ways of expressing myself that are traditionally linked to both genders. But I wouldn't call it anything, just being human. Just being me. More of a something in between rather than a polarized extreme gender.
Gender roles are heavily influenced by society. It's just a matter of which one we feel more comfortable playing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: echo7 on July 25, 2017, 10:06:42 AM
I have a difficult time accepting the idea that gender is a social construct. If that's true, then shouldn't it be possible to 'cure' transgender people by socially conditioning them?
That is well known to Not Work. Take a look at the rather horrifying results that Dr. John Money (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money) got, including his most infamous case (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer), where he claimed to have fully acculturated a male infant damaged shortly after birth to be a female child. Eventually the intrinsic gender identity of the child overrode the conditioning forced on the child, resulting in classic gender incongruency symptoms including dysphoria and depression.
If it were actually possible to condition gender identity then Brenda would be alive and happily living. This is clearly not the case.
Diamond and Sigmunsen have done additional research and publications in this area, well worth reading.
http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2000to2004/2002-conversation.html (http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2000to2004/2002-conversation.html)
Quote from: echo7 on July 25, 2017, 10:06:42 AMI have a difficult time accepting the idea that gender is a social construct. If that's true, then shouldn't it be possible to 'cure' transgender people by socially conditioning them?
As Michelle points out, gender identity isn't the same as "gender" -- at least in terms of the
categories of gender. Furthermore, while I'd argue that all categories are social constructions, this doesn't mean that social conditioning can change or erase those categories. What I mean is that categories only exist in our heads, not "out there."
But just because categories exist only in our heads doesn't mean they are easily changed, let alone by something as crude as social condition. What's in our heads may vary in malleability, depending how and when what got into our heads got there. When it comes to categories, we are predisposed to construct many certain categories (namely "basic level categories") in particular ways -- mostly subconsciously and automatically (basic pattern cognition, and likely biological predisposition to construct certain categories, including gender), and to some extent in accordance with the norms of local culture... when we are incredibly young! When we are learning language! So these structures -- these neural pathways -- become more or less permanent.
Beyond the construction of the categories of gender (which are relatively fixed) we have the
practice of gender. First there's the
assignment of gender, which again happens automatically and subconsciously; we generally don't have to
think about categorizing this person or that person by gender. Then our cultural expectations of gender kick in -- we have ingrained expectations about how people (or anything) in a particular category are likely to behave, and we interact with them accordingly. This is what it means "to gender" someone -- it's to make that assignment, over and over again, and then behave in interaction according to that automatic assignment. Similarly, we gender ourselves -- make a categorical assignment -- based on our own internal and external maps of ourselves, and then "perform" (to varying degrees) according to gendered expectations.
To be dysphoric is to have conflicting internal and external maps -- and by external maps I mean the maps we construct from what we see in the mirrors. (This includes all kinds of mirrors -- literal glass mirrors as well as the figurative mirrors of other people and how they're gendering us, even the various mirrors of self-reflection.) The external maps can be changed; the internal ones cannot.
So yes, in a way, we can cure transgendered people through social conditioning -- by changing the externally generated maps we have of ourselves and conforming to our categorical understanding of gender performance. In the former case, it takes changing phenotypes (the face, voice, and body) to align with one's internal gender identity. In the latter case, it takes adapting to social expectations -- how we interact with other people, which includes one's narrative. Both of these actually socially condition not just ourselves but
other people -- sometimes to the point where there are no longer map/territory incongruities.
And if you've achieved that, then I'd say you've transsexed.
Quote from: Sarah.VanDistel on July 24, 2017, 03:51:22 PM
What OP meant (had you exerted a little bit more perspicacity, you'd have come to the same conclusion) is that although she feels as womanly as a ciswoman, she can't honestly deny she's genetically a male. This is evident and irrefutable. It's a fact. I didn't feel insulted, at all. I'm even very comfortable with the notion. And believe me, the fact of thinking like this don't make OP or me less of a woman than you.
Now, dare I ask: do you feel insecure when someone reminds you of who you are, genetically? It shouldn't, because as you say, the mind is what matters the most. Why should you be bothered, right?
No hard feelings.
Actually, it does bother me what people think. In many ways, [public] perception is reality. For most of the public cis population, the phrase "biologically female" currently means that a person was born with 'female' DNA. If we as the transsexual community (this is the transsexual subforum, after all) agree with that meaning, we reinforce the public perception that we are not real women. It doesn't help us remove the social stigma of being something other than true women.
If we instead use "biologically female" to mean that we were born with a female brain and a female gender identity, then we can slowly help bring about the social change needed to be seen by the public as "women, with an unusual medical history" rather than the current view of "biological men who changed into women".
Quote from: echo7 on July 25, 2017, 02:26:35 PM
Actually, it does bother me what people think. In many ways, [public] perception is reality. For most of the public cis population, the phrase "biologically female" currently means that a person was born with 'female' DNA. If we as the transsexual community (this is the transsexual subforum, after all) agree with that meaning, we reinforce the public perception that we are not real women. It doesn't help us remove the social stigma of being something other than true women.
If we instead use "biologically female" to mean that we were born with a female brain and a female gender identity, then we can slowly help bring about the social change needed to be seen by the public as "women, with an unusual medical history" rather than the current view of "biological men who changed into women".
Hi echo7,
I see your point. Interesting... Not sure if your hopes are not a little too...utopic? But they are certainly food for thought. Thanks for that!
Sarah
Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
Quote from: echo7 on July 25, 2017, 02:26:35 PM
Actually, it does bother me what people think. In many ways, [public] perception is reality. For most of the public cis population, the phrase "biologically female" currently means that a person was born with 'female' DNA. If we as the transsexual community (this is the transsexual subforum, after all) agree with that meaning, we reinforce the public perception that we are not real women. It doesn't help us remove the social stigma of being something other than true women.
As shocking as it may be to the folks out there relying on their 5th grade biology class skills to determine the fate of others, this idea is nothing more than an overly broad generalization.
We don't generally force persons born with Swyer syndrome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis), or complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome) to be raised as males, or force them on diagnosis, usually in their teen years, to switch to using the men's room. (This may change in some states due to the current bathroom insanity, unfortunately.)
I am unaware of any capability that the average person on the street might have to generate detailed genotypes of strangers on the fly to determine their interactions, rendering any public perception of genotype irrelevant, if not dangerously ignorant.
Even at the genotype level there is a tremendous range of possible expression.
Quote from: echo7 on July 25, 2017, 02:26:35 PM
If we instead use "biologically female" to mean that we were born with a female brain and a female gender identity, then we can slowly help bring about the social change needed to be seen by the public as "women, with an unusual medical history" rather than the current view of "biological men who changed into women".
This might be closer to the truth, but again, even high resolution fMRI scans don't always produce obvious binary differences in what is very likely to be a continuum of variations in the brain.
All of these models attempt to preserve the Western culture model of a gender binary predicated on a single characteristic. While a single go/no-go flag might be handy for bathroom police and the Texas legislature, that model is still a huge oversimplification, which guarantees that individuals not meeting the model in any aspect will suffer at the hands of the culture subscribing to that oversimplification.
Ultimately, we need to move the culture to accept the infinite continua of gender identity and expression and stop binding all of these different concepts to a single binary marker. Arguments over which marker to use are not terribly productive.
Quote from: xFreya on July 25, 2017, 09:08:42 AM
With today's technology you probably can't change your genotype yes, but that may not mean as much as you think. Maybe refer to my earlier post and research yourself if this matters to you. Or just focus on changing your phenotype as much as you can. If you were a XY female with CAIS would the idea of having a Y chromosome bother you much? Or would you see yourself as a female with a rare condition?
I'm a bit suspicious of conflating CAIS women with most transgender women. The fact is most transgender women do not have CAIS. As I understand it CAIS is pretty rare. Most of us are born with fully functional male anatomy and are raised and conditioned at our most impressionable years as males and are subject to the effects of normal levels of androgen. All of which I suspect has pretty profound effects upon the formation of the brain architecture. Yes I know the post mortem studies showing transgender women with female brain structures, but that research is still in it's infancy and we do not yet have the full picture of the effects or early exposure to normal androgen levels combined with male social conditioning. It seems a bit like comparing apples and oranges.
Quote from: Janes Groove on July 25, 2017, 03:47:46 PM
I'm a bit suspicious of conflating CAIS women with most transgender women. The fact is most transgender women do not have CAIS. As I understand it CAIS is pretty rare. Most of us are born with fully functional male anatomy and are raised and conditioned at our most impressionable years as males and are subject to the effects of normal levels of androgen. All of which I suspect has pretty profound effects upon the formation of the brain architecture. Yes I know the post mortem studies showing transgender women with female brain structures, but that research is still in it's infancy and we do not yet have the full picture of the effects or early exposure to normal androgen levels combined with male social conditioning. It seems a bit like comparing apples and oranges.
Of course it's not exactly the same thing but I was trying to point out the existence of a Y chromosome doesn't mean
that much. Biological sex isn't always a monolithic thing. One's biology can be female in a lot of ways and male in some ways. It's probably better to consider each factor individually when it's medically relevant and not define people as "biological female/male" in daily life. :)
Quote from: echo7 on July 25, 2017, 02:26:35 PM
Actually, it does bother me what people think. In many ways, [public] perception is reality. For most of the public cis population, the phrase "biologically female" currently means that a person was born with 'female' DNA. If we as the transsexual community (this is the transsexual subforum, after all) agree with that meaning, we reinforce the public perception that we are not real women. It doesn't help us remove the social stigma of being something other than true women.
I feel similarly. When even some trans women say themselves they are biologically males, to other people it sounds like our assigned sex is objective reality and our femaleness is an act, or a delusion. I am not saying we twist biology like "well I identify as female so my penis is a female organ". I care a lot about biology and science myself. But if people are going to talk about biological sex of trans people it should be a lot more nuanced than black and white statements based on 5th grade knowledge. (I don't mean to bash anyone here I was thinking of transphobes)
Wow I thought I was totally alone in how I think. But reading posts Down to Dena and Denas post I see there are a lot of sisters like us. I am happy to see it. Hard to find anyone locally so far though.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I want to propose both @Sarah Sage and @Sarah.VanDistel for the forums official rank of "Axiom Amazons" (or Axiom Warriors) lol ;D
Joke. Both you brought nice food for thought. Anyway, conceptual frameworks are what they are, not a prison, just frameworks. You can feel imprisoned by them as much as you can feel liberated by the reference and guide they give you while in complete darkness.
As long as you assume any truth, in essence or not, interior or not, you got your axiom, your framework. It's just a tool.
It's so much fun to try to peek a look at their frontiers and beyond, but also easy to get lost (and I can't see how one may be free if don't know even slightly and just approximately where he goes and what he uses to navigate).
Quote from: echo7
If we instead use "biologically female" to mean that we were born with a female brain and a female gender identity, then we can slowly help bring about the social change needed to be seen by the public as "women, with an unusual medical history" rather than the current view of "biological men who changed into women".
I see this kind of approaches like as just changing in a student exam "3" for "2" so his "5" as a the result of the addition of "2+3" now makes sense. It's not the language (the abstract formalism) which deserves attention, but the mechanics underlyng it. Only that way the student could progress beyond. Maybe I'm the utopist here, but definitely not the way I'd proceed.
I have looked at "gender" in what to me anyway seems a logical biological state.
First, there are so many regions of our brains that are now known to be gender demorphic. However there is not enough research now to know when each section gets into its finished state. What is known is some sections are "hardwired" in the second trimester, some in the third. Maybe some earlier. What that means is during the entire time of pregnancy it's possible for some regions to be wired female and some male depending on hormone trigger levels at each sections specific time.
So logically, it would be expected that people can span the entire range of being male and being female. Since these sections of our brains do so much more than is recognized by the general populace, the concept of "gender" is not at all a social construct. Some of the brain's structures have been connected to specific instinctual behavior. Others we know can effect how a person processes thoughts. Therefore logically gender is primarily a biological reality. Our society may well build acceptable roles based on gender but real gender is specific to the way any individual thinks.
A couple of known gender demorphic sections that have some functions identified by active brain scan technology:
Hypothalamus section iNH3 associated with maternal instinctual behavior in mammals
Corpus collosum: section connecting left and right hemispheres of the brain. Both dual directional and sigle directional neurons known to exist.